Why is the application of biometry still tolerated?

>Sciences Citoyennes, a French NGO organizes a series of conferences-debates under the heading of Dialogues Sciences-Planète. One of these dialogues was on the subject of The securized man: Human, Surhuman, Transhuman (synthesis in French). One of the speakers, Gérard Dubey, analysed biometric technology. He wondered why, up to now, the deployment of biometry has been socially accepted except in small circles. He proposed the following explanation: the search for surveillance and security of governments and organizations would be met by a doubt of individuals on their identity. Individuals would thus find the biometric “certainty” reinsuring. He explained the emergence of a doubt on identity by the generalization of distant exchanges and the informationalization of society. The invocation of a role of informationalization is enlightening and could also help us understand other forms of going back to more “certain” identity such as regression to mythical origins or religious dogmatism. But the role of informationalization is more complex than claimed by Gérard Dubey. Informationalization puts identity at doubt only when individuals are deprived from the possibility to control its usage, when they are carried away by a flow of information, dispossessed of the resources of creation and action, unable to combine mediations and face-to-face relationships, physical and information activities. In brief, when they are instrumentalized in the information world and not producers of this world. In the opposite situation, use of information and communication technology on the contrary supports identities whose complexity, far from being a source of anxiety, is reinsuring. So, in order to get a political movement for the rejection of massively applicable biometry, “all” we need is a greater number of people becoming actors of the informationalization and developing an art of living with it.